I absolutely agree that you need requirements. If you don't know what you're trying to build, it makes it really hard to build it. (And, one page? That's hopelessly inadequate for anything real. But I agree, too often we just start writing...)

But I think where the disagreement comes is in the difference between requirements and specification. The example you gave is, in my view, not a spec at all, just requirements.

Take item 4: That could mean anything. It could mean a SQL database with a published schema, or it could mean a 1 GB file on disk that I can view in a hex editor. (The file probably can't be in /tmp though, because you said "robust".)

So people try to make the requirements more specific, so that they "specify" exactly what the software does. And that's where my previous comment comes in - you can't make it specific enough to answer all the questions. Which was one of the points of the article.